recap from november meeting...galen roberts watershed manager ntmwd december, 2016 recap from...

Galen RobertsWatershed ManagerNTMWD

December, 2016


December, 2016

Recap from November meeting

• Affirmed Steering Committee Membership

• Discussed Ground Rules for the Partnership

• Introduced sections 1‐3 of the Lavon Lake WPP

• Discussed future meeting dates and times

Steering Committee

• The Steering Committee is the decision making body for the Partnership

• The goal of the Steering Committee is to affirm the consensus of the Partnership and facilitate the development and implementation of a Watershed Protection Plan (WPP) for Lavon Lake

AffiliationCollin County Justice of the Peace

Collin County Engineering

City of McKinney

City of Frisco

Town of St. Paul

Collin County SWCD

Third Coast Bank SSB

Texas Pure Products

Urban Resident

Rural Resident

Ag/Rural Resident

Rural Resident

Local Resident

Real Estate Development

NameJudge Jerry Shaffer

Tracy Homfeld

Joseph Daley

Sean Aucoin

Bob London

Ben Scholz

Kelly Palmer

Bryan Moore

Dave Spadoni

Marylinda Jones

Stephanie Schertz

Bobby Patel

Bill Whitfield

Sue Blankenship

Partnership Ground Rules

• Ground Rules for the Lavon Lake Watershed Partnership are intended to address:

– Role of Steering Committee

– Time frame for project

– Size and function of Steering Committee

– Replacements, additions, alternates and proxies

– Decision making process

Lavon Lake WPP Document Outline

1. Watershed Management

2. Overview of the Watershed

3. The Lavon Lake Watershed Partnership

4. Methods of Analysis

5. Pollutant Source Assessment

6. Management Measures

7. Measures of Success

8. Project Implementation

Draft Section 1

Watershed Management:

• Watersheds and water quality

• Benefits of a watershed approach

• Watershed protection planning

Draft Section 2

Watershed Characteristics:

• Water Resources

• Water Quality

• Geography

• Climate

• Soils

• Land Use

• Ecology

• History

Draft Section 3

The Lavon Lake Partnership:

• Partnership formation

• Public meetings

• Partnership structure

• Ground rules

• Technical advisory group

Discussion & Questions

• Partnership and Steering Committee

• Ground Rules

• Draft Sections 1‐3


December, 2016


December, 2016

Lavon Lake WPP Document Outline

1. Watershed Management

2. Overview of the Watershed

3. The Lavon Lake Watershed Partnership

4. Methods of Analysis

5. Pollutant Source Assessment

6. Management Measures

7. Measures of Success

8. Project Implementation

Section 4: Methods of Analysis

Describe the analytical tools and methods that were used to determine:

• Land use characteristics

• Sources of pollution

• Amount of pollution

• Pollution reduction goals

Methods of Analysis

Existing Studies:

• Technical reports and peer reviewed literature

New Analysis:

• Land use characteristics

• Load Duration Curve (LDC)

• Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT)

Existing Studies

• CWA 319 Sediment and Atrazine Study (2006)

• Simulating sediment loading into the major reservoirs on the Trinity River Basin (2013)

• Modeling Water‐Quality (nutrient) Loads to the Reservoirs of the Upper Trinity River Basin (2015)

Methods of Analysis

Will conduct two new types of analysis.

• Load duration curve (LDC)

• Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT)

Will focus on the sources of pollution that have been identified on the TCEQ Texas Integrated Report.

• Bacteria (impairment)

• Nitrate (concern)

Other Types of Pollution

• What about other types of pollution? (e.g. Sediment, Phosphorous, Pesticides, etc.)

– Will rely on existing studies

– Will identify needs for further analysis

Section 5: Pollutant Source Assessment

1. Identify the sources of pollution present in the watershed

2. Assess those sources of pollution:

• Number and extent

• Location and distribution

• Potential effect on water quality

Pollutant Source Identification

• Stakeholder input

• Existing datasets:

– National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data

– National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit data

– National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP)

– Landsat 8 satellite imagery (NASA)

Pollutant Source Identification

Potential Sources Bacteria Nutrients Other

Humans & domesticSeptic systems

DogsUrban stormwater

XXX

XXX

X

X

LivestockCattleHorsesGoatsSheepPoultry

XXXXX

XXXXX

Wildlife & nondomesticDeer

Wild pigs

Cropland

Industrial

XX

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

Pollutant Source Assessment

Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT)

• Estimates the likely distribution of potential pollutant sources across the watershed

• Estimates potential bacteria load from each subwatershed

Pollutant Source Assessment

• SELECT Inputs

– Subwatershed boundaries

– Land use data

– Soils data

– Topography

– Human population

– Wildlife population

– Livestock population

– Daily bacteria production rate

SELECT Inputs: Subwatersheds

16

9

5

27

10

12

14

15

3

813

16

417 11

1819

20

Based on USGS HUC 12

• Numbers grouped by tributary

– East Fork = 1‐5

– Sister Grove = 6‐8

– Pilot Grove = 9‐11

– Indian Creek = 12‐14

– Wilson Creek = 15‐16

– All Others = 17‐20

SELECT Inputs: Land Use Classification

• 2014 National Ag. Imagery Program; 1m res.

• 2015 Landsat‐8 data; 15 meter res.

SELECT Inputs: Land Use Classification

• Land Use Categories: • Open Water

• Evergreen Forest

• Deciduous Forest

• Mixed Forest

• Near Riparian Forest

• Shrub/Scrub

• Grassland/Herbaceous

• Pasture/Hay

• Cultivated Crops

• High/Med./Low Urban

• Barren Land

Water

Forest

Rangeland

Managed Pasture

Cropland

Urban

SELECT Inputs

Soils data:

• SSURGO Database (NRCS)

Topography:

• Digital Elevation Map (USGS)

Hydrography:

• Stream Network (USGS)

SELECT Analysis

1. Divides the watershed into 30m grid cells

2. Uses soil data, land use, topography to determine characteristics for each cell

3. Groups cells by subwatershed

4. Calculates potential load from each subwatershed based on population inputs and daily E. coli production rate estimates

SELECT Analysis

Wildlife, Livestock, and Human Pop. Distribution

• Existing datasets (NRCS Ag Census, Census Bureau, TPWD observations)

• Stakeholder input

Key discussion points for each category:

• Total population

• Density or stocking rate

• Distribution

Wildlife and Nondomestic Populations

• Species

– Deer

– Wild Pigs


• Deer:

– 62.5 ac./deer

– Distributed to Forestland

– 1,175 deer in watershed

– Based on consultation with TPWD staff

1 69

5

27

1012

14

15

3

813

16

4 17 11

1819

20


• Wild Pigs:

– 26 ac./pig

– Distributed to riparian areas (100m)

– 15,900 pigs in watershed

– Based on consultation with TPWD staff

1 69

5

27

1012

14

15

3

813

16

4 17 11

1819

20

Livestock Populations

• Classes of livestock

– Cattle

– Horses

– Goats

– Sheep

– Poultry?


• Cattle:

– 7 ac./head

– Distributed to Rangeland Pasture/Hay

– 34,037 cattle in watershed

– Based on 2012 Ag Census data

1 69

5

27

1012

14

15

3

813

16

4 17 11

1819

20


• Horses:

– 53 ac./head

– Distributed to Grassland & Pasture

– 4,025 horses in watershed


1 69

5

27

1012

14

15

3

813

16

4 17 11

1819

20


• Goats:

– 59 ac./head


– 4,070 goats in watershed


1 69

5

27

1012

14

15

3

813

16

4 17 11

1819

20


• Sheep:

– 198 ac./head


– 1,222 sheep in watershed


1 69

5

27

1012

14

15

3

813

16

4 17 11

1819

20


Poultry

• Ag Census data says there are 8,933 layers in Collin County

– Distribute those evenly to rural households in the Collin County portion of the watershed?

– What about Grayson/Fannin/Hunt County?

Human and Domestic

• Septic Systems

• Domestic Dogs

• Urban Stormwater?

Human and Domestic Populations

• OSSF:

– 15,286 homes outside of CCN boundary

– Failure rate based on soils

– Average household size

– Based Census Bureau data

1 69

5

27

1012

14

15

3

813

16

4 17 11

1819

20

Human and Domestic Populations

• Dogs:

– 1.25 dogs per household

– 98,049 dogs in watershed

– Based on Census Bureau data

1 69

5

27

1012

14

15

3

813

16

4 17 11

1819

20

Humans and Domestic Populations

Urban Stormwater

• Can use an estimated bacteria production value.

– City of Austin Study (1997)

• Subwatershed map will look much the same as map for Dog populations.

All Populations

Total daily potential E. coli load ranges from 6.9 x 1013

to 2.41 x 1015

(cfu/day)

1 69

5

27

1012

14

15

3

813

16

4 17 11

1819

20

Discussion & Questions

Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT):

• Datasets

• Inputs

• Analysis

• Results


November, 2016


November, 2016

Meeting Dates and Times

• Partnership meetings are slated for 3:00‐4:30pm at Myers Park on the following dates:

– January 24

– February 21

– March 28

– April 25

– May 23

January Meeting

• Review LDCs and reduction target (Section 4)• Review updated SELECT analysis (Section 5)• Begin to discuss management measures

– In the meantime, please consider what management measures are needed/wanted

– Send me ideas as you have them

Project Website

• Clearinghouse for all information related to the project.

– Meeting info

– Email list signup

– Event registration

• Maps, data, publications, and useful information will be available on the website.

– www.ntmwd.com/watershed‐management

Contact Information

Galen RobertsNTMWD

[email protected]

469‐626‐4637

Jake Mowrer, PhDA&M AgriLife Extension

[email protected]

979‐845‐5366

recap from november meeting...galen roberts watershed manager ntmwd december, 2016 recap from...

Documents